-
ARELLIUS FUSCUS AND THE UNITYOF THE ELDER SENECA'S SUASORIAE
In an articIe which appeared arecent journal, I concIudedthat
the prefaces to the individual books of the eider
Seneca'sControversiae were the connecting thread which imposed a
senseof artistic, thematic, and structural unity upon the entire
work1).Each surviving preface was shown to be linked to the others
instyle by the epistolary form, and in motive by Seneca's
continualreiteration of his objective, usually in the opening
sections, toprovide spedmens for emulation or avoidance according
to thecontemporary theory of imitation2). Two methods of
transitionconnect each preface to the following book. In what might
becIassed as the direct transition,. at the of apreface
Senecamentions the main figure treated in it and a particular
declamationof his. the body of the book immediately following
beginswith a quotation from that man in the same declamation.
Alsoin the following book this main figure is treated more fully
thanin any of the other books. In less direct mode of
transition,
SUSSI1tlarl, "The Artistic Uni ty of the EIder Seneca's
FirstCOJ~trt'ver.riaeas a Who1e," A.J. P., XCII (1971),
285-291.
For the sake the eIder Seneca will be referred to as just
"Seneca."Thc edition of his works employed in the prepamtion of
this article is theone of H.].Müller (Hildesheim, 196,; reprint of
Wien, 1887). The rhetr ri-cal works of Seneca form two entities:
(I) The Controversiae, ten books ofextmcrs from colltroversiae
grouped within the books accordingto the declamation themes from
which they were taken with an intro-ductory preface accompanying
each book, and (2) two (or more) books ofextracts from suasoriae,
thc deliberative practice speeches. The inclusivetide given to the
entire collection of extracts from the cOlltroversiae andsuasoriae
is Oratorum et Rbetorum Selltentiae, Divisionu etcommonly each of
the two works is refered to separately asControversiae or the
Suasoriae. In the main MSS only five books of theContro7Jersiae (I,
11, VII, IX, X) and the first book of Suasorias rernain.
Theprefaces to Contr. I and II, and also to the Suas. are lacking.
A fourth orfifth-century excerptor prepared a summary, still
extant, of all ten booksof the Contr. to which he added six ofthe
original prefaces (to books I, II,III, IV, VII, X).
2) Sussman (above, n. I), p. 286. Seneca addressed each preface
as aletter to his three sons, Novatus, the younger Seneca, and
Mela.
-
Lewis A. Sussman
at the end of apreface Seneca promises to recall in the
followingbook with special fullness the sayings of the man who was
themajor figure of that preface, and then in fact actually does
so.Thus by both content and transition, where the state of thetext
allows us to check, Seneca re1ates each preface to the bookit
introduces.
In addition, the theme of meliores annos which artistically
uni-fies the first preface also recurs in the tenth and last
preface, asdoes his oft-repeated promise to provide examples of
rhetorlcfor the benefit ofhis sons. Therefore the entirety of the
Contro-versiac was shown in the article to have been carefully
unifiedthrough both thematic and structural means insofar as
theanthology format allowed.
* **
Seneca's later work, a collection of extracts from
suasoriac,survives in an incomplete state, lacking apreface, the
openingsection of Suas. I, and at least a second book 3). Thus the
presenttextual state of the work would apparently not permit us
toinvestigate how Seneca might have attempted to unify this workas
he did the Controversiac. However, there is sufficient
internalevidence which allows an identification of the thematic
andstructurallinks which Seneca employed to unify the
individualsuasoriac of this particular book to each other, and also
enablesus to reconstruct with some degree of accuracy the subject
of
3) Cf. above, n. 1. On the order of composition, see Contr. II,
4, 8.In the schools, however, students first worked on suasoriae
(because of theirsimpler argumentation), and then graduated to
controversiae. The reasoningfor this apparent inversion in order
may be as folIows: At the time whenSeneca's sons began asking
questions about the declaimers and declamationof the past (and when
Seneca became concerned about the effect theseartificial exerdses
might have on their courtroom oratory), they were alreadycomposing
controversiae or actually beginning their legal careers. At
thisstage, study of controversiae would be desirable. After some
time in thecourts, the sons would then be readying themselves for
political careers inwhich exerdses of deliberative oratory (Le.,
suasoriae) would be moreuseful. In addition, at approximately this
stage a Roman gentleman wouldconsider in what fields to direct his
literary energies. Seneca, as we shallsee later, vehemently desired
that this sons become interested in higherforms of literary
expression than the currently popular declamation. This,in my
opinion, accounts also for the emphasis in the Suas. on literary
mat-ters and the contrast of stylistic tastes between declaimers
and literarypeople. On this, see below.
-
AreIlius Fuscus and thc of thc Eider Seneca's Suasoriae ;05
the missing preface. Certain basic themes also emerge,
un-doubtedly related to the preface, which unify the book as
awhole.
The key to this reconstrucdon is Arellius Fuscus, an exce1-lent
dedaimer Seneca ranked among the top four in thefield 4). His great
fame attracted many talented students to theschool which he
condueted, among them Ovid, Fabianus, andVibius Gallus 5). Seneca
himself must have been a eonstantvisitor to his school, judging
from the t number of quota-dons from Fuseus which he induded in is
works 6).
An examination of the role Fuscus plays in the Suasoriaeleads to
an important observation: there exists in this workmore material
relating to Fuscus than to any other dedaimer').The s" of this fact
beeomes dearer after abrief discus-sion seus.
Seneea teIls us in controversiae Fuscus delivered
dryintroductions, arguments, and narrations (II, Praef., I);
andalso that, by implication, his style was obscure (II, Praef.,
2.).
4) X, Praif., 13; he was ranked after Latro and Gallio. On his
ex-cellence as a deelaimer, cf. Suas. 4. 5; also Gontr. I, 6, 10
and Suas. 2. 10.He had faults tao, discussed below.
5) On Ovid, cf. Gontr. II, 2, 8-9; on Fabianus, cf. H, Praef.,
1, 5; onGallus, cf. Henri Bornecque, Les dtfc!amations et les
dic!amateurs d'apresSIneqm Ie pere (Lilie, 1902), pp. 197-198.
6) Cf. ibM., p. 150, where Borneeque points out that Seneea
mendonsFuscus at least onee in all the extant controversiae and
sua.roriae oftentwiee, and oecasionally four times. Suas. 4 is
almost endrely made up ofquotations from him. The only other
declaimer similarly honored is Latro(Gontr. H,7) whose quoted words
dominate the Gontroversiae.
7) Coundng lines in the Müller edition (above, n. I), we have of
2.04in Suas. 1, one line of Fuscus; in Suas. 2.,47.5 lines of 249;
in Suas. ;,43lines of 90; in Suas. 4,50 lines of 55 in Suas.5, 32.
5 of 8I. 5; in Suas. 6(nearly half of which is a long on historieal
writers), 18 of ;25;and in Suas. 7,14 of 172. Thus Seneca devotes a
total of 208lines to Fuscusout of II78. 5, or elose to 18% (17.7%).
The opening of Suas. I, ineludingthe sua.roria theme itself (whieh,
however, can easily be reconstructed),and the attribution of what
remains of the first quotation are lacking. Fromthe pattern seen in
the opening sections of Suas. 2, 3, 4 and 5, in each ofwhich Fuscus
appears first, it is tempdng to ascribe the opening I; lines
ofSuas. 1 (plus whatever has been lost) likewise to Fuscus.
Certainly the styleis reminiscent. We can explain the lower
proportion of Fuscan material inthe last two suas., 6 and 7, since
they represent a break in the flow fromthe first five suasoriae in
whieh the themes are exelusively concerned withGreek history. Since
the last two suasoriae deal with subjects from recentRoman history
(i.e., the last ofCicero), Fuscus, a Greek, may havefound these
themes less attractive for deelamadon. On the Greek origin
ofFuscus, see Bornecque (above, n. 5), p. 150.
20 Rhein. Mus. f. Philol. N. F. CXX. 3--+
-
Lewis A. Sussman
He was apparently unsuited to argumentation: a color of hismeets
with serious objections (Contr. VII, 2, 12), and even inthe simpler
arrangement of argumentation found in suasoriaeJhis division is
termed vulgaris (Suas. 2. 11). Therefore Fuscus wasnot especially
suited to the composition and delivery of contro-versiae.
On the other hand it emerges that his style was muchbetter
adapted to the more poetic suasoriae. This may haveresulted from
his early training, since his own teacher of rhetoricwas fond of
employing Homeric lines in declamations, a practicewhich Fuscus
also adopted (Contr. I, 7, 14; cf. I, 8, 15). ButFuscus was fonder
of Vergil whose lines he frequently imitated(Suas. 3.4-5) or even
quoted in his declamations(Suas.4.4). Thepoetic flavor of Fuscan
style is immediately apparent in themany selections which Seneca
preserves, and indeed, Seneca'sown comments emphasize this pointS).
His observation thatFuscus greatly preferred to declaim suasoriae
is therefore hardlysurprising (Suas. 4. 5; cf. 2. 10). Two famous
students ofFuscus,Ovid and Fabianus, themselves also preferred
suasoriaeJ andundoubtedly for the same reason - their attraction to
a poeticprose style (II, PraefJ 3; II, 2, 12).
Of the four men whom he ranks in his first tetrad of declai-mers
(X, Praef J 13), Seneca assigns major portions of the surviv-ing
prefaces oE the Controversiae to two of them: Latro (1,
PraefJ13-24) and Albucius (VII, PraefJ 1-9). In these prefaces, as
ishis custom, Seneca examines in great detail the character
andtalent of these men. Since one of Seneca's most importantmotives
in writing was to provide critical information of thisnature
concerning the great declaimers, we should readilyexpect that the
other two members of this tetrad, Gallio andFuscus, similarly
received prominent mention in two oE the lost
8) Poetic influence is espedally noticeable in his descriptions;
e. g.,Contr. I, 3, 3; 11, 5, 4; Suas. 3. I; cf. 11, Praef., 1.
These were famous;Suas. 2.10, 23; 4.5. As a member of the Asian
school (if we accept anemendation here), he would naturally favor
poetic diction and figures(Contr. IX, 6, 16). His compositio was
rather mollis (11, Praef., I) andfracta(Suas. 2. 23). There is no
contradiction in this assessment; see William A.Edward, Tbe
Suasoriae of Seneca tbe Eider (Cambridge, 1928), p. 108, notead
loc. ipse sententiam ... , Suas. 2. 10. 20. Edward also notices the
poeticflavor of the words Fuscus employed (ibid.). Seneca hirnself
observes thepoetic aspects of Fuscan style: ... vestri arbitrii
erit utrum explicationes eiusluxuriosas putetis an vegetas (Suas.
2. 10). He refers also to the ... nimius cultusetfracta conpositio
(Suas. 2. 23); cf. Suas. 4. 5: ... nemo videretur dixisse
cultius.Also on the poetic style ofFuscus, see Bornecque (above, n.
5), pp. 151-152.
-
Arellius Fuscus and the Unity of the EIder Seneca's Suasoriae
307
prefaces 9). And since, as we have already seen, Fuscus was
moreadept in suasoriae than in controversiaeJ we should also expect
thatSeneca would find it more appropriate to treat him in the
pre-face to a book of suasoriae.
Bearing in mind our previous discussion which revealedthat
Seneca habitually treated the dedaimer or dedaimers whofigured
prominently in apreface with corresponding fullness inthe book
following, and recalling the overwhe1ming statisticalrole ofFuscus
in what remains of the SuasoriaeJ we can, I believe,safe1y theorize
that he was a subject of the now lost preface tothe first book of
Suasoriae 10). Additional evidence in the worksupports such a
condusion, strongest being thread ofcontinuity central to this
collection which consists of directreferences to Fuscus, and the
desire of Seneca's sons to knowmore about him and his style.
In SI/as. 1 there is only one identifiable reference to
Fuscus,and this may be due to the text difficulties in the
beginning ll).However, the second suasoria begins with a long
quotation ofhim (Suas. 2. 1-2), and an important remark appears
later inwhich Seneca admits the reason for induding this sl.asoria
themein the collection:
Ruius suasoriae fed mentionem, non in ea subtilitatis erat
ali-quid, quod vos exdtare posset, sed ut quam nitide Fuscus
dbdssetvel quam licenter; sententiam non feram; vestri arbitrii
erit, utrumexplicationes eius luxuriosas an vegetas (Suas. z.
10).
After referring to the great popularity enjoyed by
theexplicationes12) of Fuscus, Seneca promises that he will add
themost ce1ebrated little descriptive passages (descriptiunculae)
from
9) The brief references to Fuscus in II, Praef. are not to be
interpretedas a general critical portrait. He is mentioned and his
referred to onlyin relation to the effects produced the style of
JF'ab,iat1lus.
10) I have assumed, as have (above, n. 8), p. xxxvi, and].
\'V.R.Atkins, Crificism in Antiquity (z vols.; New York, 1952),
II:Graeco-Raman, p. 147, that there was apreface to the first book
of Suas.Certainly, given Seneca's practice in the Cantr., we should
expect him tocontinue prefadng the books of rhetorical extracts.
Also, the mutilatedopening of Suas. 1 (see above, n.7) would
explain the loss of thepreface.
I I) See above, nn. 7 and 1012) These were thc developments of
themes or arguments in the
narratio j Cicero, Part 01'.,9. 3I; cf. Heinrich Lausberg,
Handbuch der litera-riscbe;: Rhetorik (z vols.; München 1960),
1,164-165,168; II, 700.
-
Lewis A. Sussman
all of the suasoriae which he delivered13). At the end of
thissuasoria, Seneca refers to his previous pledge that he
wouldprovide examples of the explicationes of Fuscus, and as in
theabove passage he brings up the matter of stylistic taste,
thoughrather more sharply:
Sed ne vos diutius infatuem, quia dixeram me Fusci Arelli
expliea-tiones subieeturum, hic finem suasoriae fadam. Quarum
nimius eultus etfracta conpositio poterit vos offendere, eum ad
meam aetatem veneritis;interim non dubito, quin nunc vos ipsa, quae
offensura sunt, vitia deleetent(Suas. 2. 23).
As promised, the third suasoria starts with the Fuscan
deve-lopment of a descriptive subject, meteorological
phenomena(Suas. 3. 1.). Seneca refers to this very passage as
description(Suas. 3.4), and then comments critically about the
style ofFuscus; in this case, his unsuccessful imitation of Vergi1.
Indoing so, he has broken his word that he would not himselfpass
judgment on Fuscus but would leave this up to his sons(Suas. 2.
10).
After digressing upon a topic related to Vergilian
imitations(Suas. 3.6-7), Seneca returns to Fuscus at the end of
thissuasoria (3. 7), and reiterates his pledge to present this
declaimer'sfamous descriptions. A detectable note of sarcasm
appears in histhreat to satiate his sons immediately (statim
satiabo) with aFuscan passage which developed the theme of
probability, herein regard to the impossibility of knowing what the
future maybring14).
In the opening seetions of the fourth suasoria, Seneca makesgood
his promise, and even as stated, to the point of satiation(Suas.4.
1-3,4). At the end of this short suasoria, devoted nearlyin its
entirety to Fuscus, Seneca refers to his sons' incessantquestions
about Fuscus and his style (Suas. 4. 5). In response,he says that
he will heap upon them (in apparently the samemildly sarcastic tone
of Suas. 3. 7) additional explicationes ofFuscus:
Et quia soletis mihi molesti esse de Fuseo, quid fuerit, quare
nemovideretur dixisse eultius, ingeram vobis Fusdnas explicationes
(Suas. 4· 5).
13) At quia semel in mentionem incidi Fusci, ex omnibus
Stfasoriis ce/ebresdescriptiunculas subtexam, etiamsi nihil
occurrerit, quod quisquam alius nisi Stfasordilexerit (Suas. 2.
IO).
14) Iam, si vultis, ad Fuscum revertar et descriptionibus eius
vos statimsatiabo ac potissimum eis, quas in verisimilitudinis
tractatione posuit, cum diceretomnino non concessam futurorum
scientiam (Suas. ;. 7).
-
Arellius Puscus and the Unity of the Eider Seneca's Suasoriae
309
Edward has ohserved that this statement could weIl he
anotherreference to the promise Seneca made in Suas. 1.. 10 15).
ButSeneca's phrasing regarding the deep interest of bis sons
inFuscus and his style is closely reminiscent of numerous
passagesin the extant prefaces to the Controversia( 16) and leads
me tohelieve that he is referring to a similar remark in the lost
prefaceto the Suasoriae. In addition, the nature of the information
men-tioned - quiJfuerit, quare nemo videretur dixisse cultius
stronglysuggests the type of material which Seneca customarily
presentsin the prefaces to the Controversiac where he regularly
analyzes atlength the character of a declaimer and its relationship
to hisstyle. And this is precisely what the phrase quoted above
inti-mates. Then Seneca's practice in the book of the
Controvcrsiaewhich follows is to yrovide numerous examples of style
whichillustrate the era discussion of the preface, as he has
donemost notably Fuscus in the Suasoriae.
Seneca fuHills the pledge made at the end of thesuasoria in the
beginning of the fifth, since this theme starts witha long
explicatio quoted from Fuscus (5.1-3), and then discusseshis
division of the argument (5. 4).
Thus far it has been evident that Fuscus not only dominatesSuas.
1.-5 hy his presence, hut also forms the link uniting eachtheme to
the other. In the last two suasoriac, however, his rolediminishes
and material relating to hirn amounts only to a totaloE 31. Müller
lines. Perhaps this can be attributed to the suhjectmatter oE Suas.
6 and 7, the last days ofCicero. As ahorn GreekFuscus may not have
found themes congeniaI 17). However,Seneca mayaiso have
deliberately changed his pace, and for aspecific reason which
ultimately relates hack to some of theliterary points which arose
in the first five suasoriac.
An observation at the end of Suas. 5 is important in tbisregard.
Up untiI this point each suasoria demonstrated a clearlink to the
one following 18). Yet at the end of Suas. 5 there is a
15) Edward (above, n. 8), p. 127 note ad loc. cu/Hus, Suas. 4.
19.27.16) E.g., 1, Praif., 1, 3,4,6,10; VII, Praif., 1; X, Praif.,
I, 9. Cf. 1,
Praif., 22; IX, Praef., 1; X, Praef., 2, 4.17) Cf. above, n. 7
ad ftnem.18) One might possibly submit that the end ofSuas. I does
not exhibit
a clear linkage to the following suasoria. But there is an
important discussionof arecurring and dominant theme in the Suas.
stylistic taste (Suas. I. 16),on which see be1ow, n. 45. The end of
Suas. 6 displays a very direct transi-tion to Suas. 7.
-
Lewis A. Sussman
cryptic statement which apparently does not antidpate theopening
of the next suasoria:
Hoe Ioeo disertissimam sententiam dixit, dignam quae vel in
orationevel in historia ponatur... (Suas. 5. 8).
Upon further examination this apparently chance remark provesto
be a linking device of great significance. Let us see how.
The next suasoria, "Cicero deliberates whether he shouldentreat
Antony for his life," proceeds normally, and perhapsshould have
ended in seetion 14. But here there is an abruptentry into a long
digression which itself relates back to Seneca'sdosing words in
Suas. 5. 8. He says in 6. 14 that since this suasoriatheme revolves
around events of Cicero's last days, it wouldnot be irrelevant to
show how the various historid dealt with
death of the great orator. The remainder of the suasoria
(6.14-27) consists of material from or re1ating to wdters
ofhistory.
Recalling Seneca's remark in Suas. 5. 8 quoted above, wemay weIl
ask whether he is not now purpose1y implying anunfavorable
comparison between the of dec1aimers onthe one hand, and true
Hterary people on the other, when hedivides this suasoria between
them.
* **
The consideration another matter will illuminate thetopic we
have just touched upon. Another dec1aimer figuresprominently also
in the Suasoriae: Ludus Cestius Pius, to whomSeneca devotes 167. 5
Müller Hnes in contrast to the 208occupied by Fuscus 1\1). Seneca
had both men firmly in mindwhile writing the Suasoriae. Not only
does the number of linesgiven each attest to this, but also the
pronounced tendency forFuscus, and, to a lesser extent, Cestius, to
appear at the first orsecond positions in the opening, division,
and conc1uding por-tions of each suasoria:
19) The figures for Cestius are as follows: SuaJ'. I, 55 Müller
lines of2.04; Suas. 2., 19.5 of 2.49; Suas. 3, 9.5 of 90; Suas. 4
zero of 55; Suas. 5,18.5 of 81. 5; Suas. 6, 14 of 32.5; Suas. 7, 51
of 172.: or 167.5 lines of atotal II18. 5. Cestius is also
important in the Contr. He i8 mentioned ineaeh of the extant themes
exeept 9. 2, and is prominent also in the Exeerptaof the missing
books. See also Borneeque (above, n. 5), p. 161.
-
Arellius Fuscus and the Unity of the EIder Seneca's Suasoriae 3I
1
Suas. 1 Suas. 2. Suas. 3 Suas. 4 Suas. 5 Suas. 6 Suas. 7
Fuscus *OPENING
Cestius * 6 2.
Fuscus 13 1,4DIVISION
Cestius 1,7 2. 2.
Fuscus -CONCLUSION
Cestius 1
7 7
2. 4 2.1,4
2. !T
+ +*
+ 2.
* Text not complete: speaker unidentifiedNot applicableText
incomplete: first unidentified
In the Controversiac) where the state of the text aUows us
tocheck, Seneca has a tendency to do exactly the same thing in
thescntentiac) division, and color seetions for the man whom he
hasdiscussed in the introductory preface of that book20). The
2.0) The opening (or sententiae) and divisio portions of a
SenecansuasQria therne are analogous to the first two sections of a
typical controversia.[Sententia is to be taken in the broad sense
of "remarkable sayings," notjust a terse cf. Edward (above, n. 8),
p. xxxiv.] In the Suasoriae,after the occurs adefinite third
section, though not dealingwith colores (tWISts argument either to
rnitigate or enhance guilt) sincethese are not appropriate in
deliberative speeches. Instead, in the concludingseetion of a
Senecan suasoria, there are cdtical analyses, sometimes in
greatdetail, of individual sentences or phrases (e.g. Suas.
2..12.-1,), anecdotesabout famous people (e. g. Suas. 2.. 10, 15,
17; 7. 12.-14), and about literaryrnatters (e.g. Suas. I. 15;
3.4-7; 4.4-5; 6. 14-17). Seneca also placesthe bulk of quotations
those declaiming in Greek here.
Retuming to the relative order of appearance in the three
sections ofthe controversiae, the most striking example is the
subject of the first preface.l'vlarcus Porcius Latro, and his
prorninence in the initial sections (sententiae,divisiones,
colores) of each controversia theme in Book I. Achart displays
itgraphically:
-
Sententiae
Divisiones
Colores
Lewis A. Sussman
I, r 1,2. 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8
r2.
*'2. 1 *'+
2. 5, etc.
* all declaimers used the same divisionalso 8, 10, 12.
Latro declaimed prolificaIly, and apparently Seneca was very
familiar withhis work.
The subject of the ninth is Votienus whom Senecahimself teIls us
did not declaim publicly, nor even as an (IX, Praef.,1). The
quantity of his declamatory material therefore must have beensmall.
Most of what appears in Seneca's collecdon is concentrated in
BookIX. Montanus also tends to appear eady in each section:
IX, r IX, 2. IX, ; IX, 4 IX, 5 IX, 6
Sententiae 15 6 II 4 4
Divisiones 2. 2. 1 2, 17, 2;
Colores I'" 1,4 +6 5,7
'" with Gallio and Latro+ all declaimers used the sameA similar
pattern is apparent in Seneca's treatment of AibuCl1)lS, the
mainfigure of the seventh preface, and also Fabianus, of the
preface, ofthe book followings each:
(Albucius) VII, 1 VII, 2 VII,; VII, 4 VII, 5 VII, 6 VII, 7 VII,
8
Sententiae 4 3 2 7 r1 1
Divisiones 4 2.
Colores 2.,6 15 2. 2,9,162,14
-
Arellius Fuscus and the Unity of the Eider Seneca's Suasoriae 3I
3
pattern therefore of the Suasoriae supports our condusion
thatFuscus was probably the main figure of the preface, although
italso that Seneca may also have dealt in it with Cestius.There no
doubt, however, that Seneca was thinking aboutboth men, and abrief
survey of Cestius may weIl be in order asan aid in understanding
the Suasoriae.
Though persuasive and often eloquent, Cestius personifiedsome of
the worst defidendes of declamation. In a situationexploited
humorously by Cassius Severus, Cestius proved to beentirely
incompetent in a court oflaw 21). His style, nevertheless,was
congenial to the dedining tastes of the day, and he
attractednumerous students to his schooL Here they memorized
thespeeches of Cestius, but read none of Cicero's unless they
wereones to which Cestius replied 22). Even when Cassius
Severusthreatened hirn with severe embarrassment, Cestius was
unableto admit that Cicero's eloquence outshined his own (lU,
Praef,17)·
most disappointing aspect of Cestius' talent was hisconscious
perversion of it. Seneca records at least several occas-ions where
Cestius reveals that he is capable of speaking weIland could be a
sensible and perceptive critic of rhetoric23). But
(Fabianus) II, I 2. II" II,4 II,j II,6 II,7
Sententiae 7 7 3 7 43 2. 2.
Divisiones 2
Colores 1,6 34
Fabianus, it should be noted, was a philosopher, and only an
occasionaldeclaimer (II, Praif., I, 5). The bulk of his material is
very and littleoccurs outside of Book Il; nevertheless, in this
book he also tends toappear initially in each seetion.
21) III, Praef., 17-18; cf. C.S.Rayment, "Presumption
Rebuked,"Cf., XLII (I947), 2.59-260. On Cestius in see Bornecque
(above,n. 5), pp. 160-162..
22.) Praif., 15-16; cf. Quintilian, Inst. Or., X, 5,20.23)
Contr. I, 1,24; 1,3,9; 1,5,3; II, 6, 8; IV, Excerpta, 8 extra;
VII, 7, 19. Particularly notable is his discussion of propriety
in delivedng aspeech before an absolute monarch (Suas. 1.5,8). To
his Cestius isvery much aware ofthe abuses ofimitation; cf. Contr.
IX, 3, 6, I 1-12.Nevertheless, he often did not succeed in his
imitations great writers(Contr. VII, I, 27).
-
Lewis A. Sussrnan
Cestius realized that the tastes of the declamation audiences
werejaded and faulty, and so, although he knew better, he spoke
pur-pose1y in a corrupt fashion to win their approval:
Cestius pueriliter se dixisse intellegebat ... et ego nune seio
rne inep-tarn sententiam dicere; rnulta autern dico non quia rnihi
placent, sed quiaaudientibus placitura sunt.24)
Familiar with the great political and judicial oratorywhich
characterized the last days of the Republic, Cestius wit-nessed
first-hand the decline of such oratory in the Principateand the
consequent redirection of rhetorical talent into dec1ama-tion.
Accompanying this deve10pment was a marked shift instyle caused by
the necessity for declaimers to please and delighttheir audiences
on a faidy limited range themes. Thus theyconstantly strove for
brilliant, crowd-pleasing effects with suchdevices as sententiaeJ
poetic diction, and jingling figures. Sincethere were usually no
opponents in a declamation session, thespeakers tended to neglect
argumentation and in fandfulconduct which could never be tolerated
in a courtroom 25). Theydeclaimed, it is true, using laws which
have now been recognizedas basically authentie Greek or Roman
statutes; thesituations applied to these laws on which they
declaimed werefrequentlyfar removed from rea1ity, bizarre, and even
obsence 26).The generation of students trained in a system of
higher educa-
24) Cantr. IX, 6, 12. The audiences preferred the styles of the
declai-rners Cestius and Latro to those of the far superior orators
Pollio, Messalla,and Passienus; they would even prefer Cestius to
Cicero, if they did notfear being stoned (III, Prae/., 14-1 5). The
audiences also betrayed theirlack of taste with excessive and
frequent applause (IX, Praif., 2; cf. Cantr.II, 3, 19; VII, 2, 9;
Quintilian, Inst. Or., 11, 10), often cornpletely un-warranted
(e.g. Contr. VII, 4,10). It is that Bornecque (above,n. 5), p. 58,
could not discover how audiences expressed their displeasure,but he
theorizes that with unrestrained applause so common, its
mereabsence would be suffieiently darnaging. On the debasernent of
taste seealso Quintilian, Inst. Or., 11, 5, 10. XII, 10, 73~76;
].F.D'Alton, RomanLiterar.y Theory and Criticism (London, 193 I),
p. 33 8.
25) Albucius' use of a declarnatory figure in a court, and
thecensequent of his case (VII, Pra~f., 6-7). Cf. IX, Praif., 2-3,
5;also 111, Praej., 13.
26) On the declarnation thernes, cf. above; also see the works
eited inSussman (above, n. I), p. 285, n. r, and the additional
bibliography in ].E.G. Whitehorne, "The EIder Seneca: A Review of
Past Work," Prudentia,I (r969), 21-23. The better ancient critics
recognized and censured theunreal aspects of the thernes; cf.
Persius, Sat., 111, 44-47; Petronius, Sal.,1-2,48; Quintilian,
Insl. Or., II, ro, 5; Tacitus, DiaJ., 31,35.
-
Arellius Fuscus and the Unity of the EIder Seneca's Suasoriae 3I
5
tion which consisted almost totally of exercises such as
theseconsequently developed affected and strange tastes in style.
Thegraduates of the schools did not necessarily abandonstudent
declamation exercises, but throughout adulthood conti-nued to
deliver them publidy. Attendance and participation atsuch sessions
constituted a significant leisure time activity forthe Roman upper
classes by the time of Augustus' death27).
Thus we can isolate two trends associated with rise
ofdeclamation which were potentially dangerous to oratory
andliterature : (I) a decline of stylistic taste, and (2.) a
transferral ofcreative energies from realoratory 01' literary
activity to thepractice of declamation.
Seneca appreciated that declamation was a potentially usefuland
entertaining exercise. But much to his credit, he also per-ceived
its dangers. He preserved an anthology of declamationextracts at
the request of his sons who were greatly interestedin the
declaimers and declamation of the past, since he believedthat it
was a useful primary training for more sedous pursuits 28).But as a
literary critic he was careful to view declamation in itsproper
perspective and warn his sons of the pitfalls associatedwith an
excessive emphasis on these exercises, particularly inregard to
style29).
Seneca's effort to counteract the two dangerous trendsassociated
with decIamation permeate his entire critical theoryas observable
in his OWn comments and those preserves ofother cdtics in the
Controversiae 30). Similar efforts centeringaround bis
presentations of Arellius Fuscus and Cestius Pius
27) Included among those who frequently attended or deelaimed
werePollio, MessaHa, Maecenas, Agrippa, Augustus, and Tiberius. On
Maece-uns, Agrippa, and Augustus, cf. Contr. II, 4, I2.-13; IV,
Praef., 7; X, 5,21;Suetonius, Augustus, 89. On Tiberius and MesaHa,
cf. Suas. 3. 7; on Gallioand Messalla, cf. Suas. 3.6. For a fuHer
listing see Edward (above, n. 8),p. xx, and Bornecque (above, n.
5), pp. 42-43, 46. himself wasa good critic of declamation and
eloquence in general; e. g., Contr. II, 5, 20;X, Praif., 14;
Suetonius, 86.
28) Fad/i! ab hac in omnes artes di!cursus est .. instruit etiam
quos non sibiexercet (II, Praef., 3; cf. II, Praef., 4, 5).
29) Although this is arecurring theme throughout the Contr.
andSuas., it is most noticeable in the prefaces, especiaHy II,
Praef., Praif.,VII, Praef., and Praif.
30) See Lewis A. Sussman, The Eider Seneca as a Critic 01
Rhetoric(Diss., Chapel HilI, 1969), Chapters II and III, passim;
also A. FredSochatoff, "Basic Rhetorical Theories of the EIder
Seneca," C.f., XXXIV(1939), 345-354·
-
Lewis A. Sussman;16
pervade the Suasoriae and not only suggest that he discussedsuch
matters in the lost preface, but also that he used this topkas a
unifying motif for Suasoriae, Book 1. Let us see how.
When he presents extracts from various declaimers inhis
rhetorical works, Seneca usually lets the quotations speakfor
themselves as examples of good or bad speech. In unusualcases,
however, he will point out what is exceptionally eloquentor
corrupt31). But although he trusts the judgment of his sonsfor the
most part, he obviously harbors and occasionally ventsthe suspicion
that their young and inexperienced tastes are notsufficiently
dis1crirninatirlg
Ex Graecis declamatodbus nulli melius haec suasoda quamGI'vconi;
sed non minus muIta magnilice dixit quam corrupte: utrorum
vobis potestatem. Et volebam vos expedd non adiciendo
iudiciummeum nec separando a corruptis sana; potuisset enim lied,
ut vos magisilla laudaretis, quae insaniunt. At nihilo minus
poterit lieri, quamvisdistinxerim (5uas. 1. 16).
Once again, in Suas. z. 10, Seneca first pledges that he will
allowbis sons to evaluate on their own the brilliance or the
license ofthe style of Fuscus, but he then immediately contradicts
himselfby adding a damaging remark of Pollio's against Fuscus
andthen one of his own 32). Seneca voices his lack of confidence
intheir taste in a more open, yet resigned manner at the end of
thissame suasoriae 33). He understands that bis sons are now
deeplyunder the influence of faults prevalent in the schools, but
he hasconfidence that age, experience, and bis own direction will
pointthem to saner standards of style. It may not be accidental
thatthe declaimer mentioned in the passage referred to is
Fuscus,
;1) E.g., ContI'. IX, 5, 15; 5uas. 1. 12. Seneca is working
within thetheory of imitation; his purpose is to provide examples
for his sons toemulate or avoid.
32.) 5uas. 2..10: Ruius suasoriae feci mentionem, non quia in ea
st/btilitatiserat aliquid) quod vos excitareposset) sed ut
seiretis) quam nitMe Fuseus dixissetue/ quam tkmter,. ipse
sententiam non feram " vestri arbitri erit) utrum expticationeseius
luxuriosas putetis an vegetas. Poilio Asinit/s aiebat hoc non esse
suadere) sedludere. Recoto nihit fuisse me iuvene tam notum quam
has exp/icationes Fusei, quasnemo tlostrum non aiius aiia
inclinatione vocis ve/ut sua quisque modu/atione eantabat.At qma
semel in mentionem ineidi Fusti, ex omnibus suasoriis ce/ebres
des'crijDti,~neu/as subtexam, etiamsi nihii occ14rrerit, q140d
q14isq14am aliu! nisi s14asor az",x~ru.The last remark is
especially damaging. The force also of descr;pti14ntu/asmay also be
pejorative. Cf. his use of satiabo in 5uas. 3.7 and ingeram in5uas.
4.5: he will "glut" his sons with Fuscus so they will become tired
ofhis expIkationes and descriptiones. Cf. II, Praef., 1,2..
5uas. 2.2.3; cf. above.
-
Arellius Fuscus and the Unity of the EIder Seneca's Suasoriae
317
and that the first two dedaimers to appear in the
followingsuasoria are Fuscus and Cestius 34).
Both men have shown that they are capable of eloquentexpression.
But each also is guilty of serious faults which areprimarily the
result of poor taste or the dictates of an educa-tional system in
which each served as a school master. Fuscushad an excessively
poetic style and he was unsuited for dedaimingcontroversiae, to say
nothing ofappearing in a law court. Althoughhe knew better, Cestius
pandered to the degraded taste of hisaudience. Skilled in
delivering controversiae, he was neverthelessa dismal failure in
court (IH, Praef.) 17).
Seneca looked back to Cicero for saner standards of style35),and
fittingly recorded for the amusement of his sons the punish-ment
meted out to Cestius, a noted obtrectator Ciceronis} by thegreat
orator's besotted son when he learned who Cestius was 36).Fuscus
and Cestius, then, were among the best of the dedaimers.Yet both
graphically illustrated the pernicious trends of the newrhetoric
against which Seneca had been diligently warning hissons by
examples, critical anecdotes, and pen sketches of thenotable
dedaimers. Seneca is anxious for his sons to understandthe changes
occurring in rhetorical style, and to avoid thosewhich he considers
inimical to the growth of a sane prose style.
* **
The discussion above will perhaps now illuminate thecomment
Seneca made at the very end of the fifth suasoria thatGallio
delivered a sententia sufficiently eloquent to be worthy of
34) In fact, Arellius Fuscus is treated very fully in Suas. 3
and 4:93 Müller lines from a total of 145.
35) Cf. his laudatory remarks on Cicero: Omnes autem magni in
elo-quentia nominis excepto Cicerone videor audisse,. ne Ciceronem
quidem aetas mihieripuerat, sed beJlorum civilium furor ... alioqui
in iJlo atriolo, in quo duos grandespraetextatos ait secum
dec/amasse, potui adesse iJludque ingenium, quod solum popu-lus
Romanus par imperio suo habuit, cognoscere el, quod vulgo aliquando
dici solet,sed in iJlo proprie debet, potui vivam vocem audire (I,
Praef., II). Cf. I, Praif.,6-7; Contr. VII, 4, 6; X, Praej., 6;
Suas. 7.10. Three dec1amation themesin the collection deal with
Cicero: Contr. VII, 2., Suas. 6, and Suas. 7. Seneca'sliterary
critical vocabulary is also heavily indebted to Cicero; cf.
HenryBardon, Le vocabulaire de la critique litteraire chez Seneque
le rheteur (Paris,1940), pp. 65 ff. See in general on Seneca's
appredation of Cicero, Sussman(above, n. 30), pp. 152.-155.
36) Suas. 7. 12.-13. Hybreas, a slavish imitator of Cicero, also
sufferedinsult from the younger Cicero (Suas. 7. 14).
-
Lewis A. Sussman
oratory or history (Suas. 5. 8). This statement plainly
intimatesthe inferiority of declamation as an area of literary
activity in theeyes of Seneca, an opinion which he airs also in the
Contro-versiae 37). It also prepares us for the following suasoria
themeand acts as a transition, since in Suas. 6 Seneca is
obviouslytrying to direct the interest of his sons from declamation
towriting history38). Nevertheless, in this same suasoria he says
thatnone of the great historians quoted on the topic of
Cicero'sdeath matched in eloquence the words of Cornelius Severus,
apoet (Suas. 6.25). Similarly, Seneca had remarked previouslythat
the Latin declaimers were unable to describe a storm sceneas
successfully as the poet Albinovanus Pedo (Suas. 1. 15). Im-portant
also is the order in which he presents the various typesof
quotations in Suas. 6: Btst come those from declamation (6.1-14),
next one from an oration (6. 15), then from history (6.16-6. 25),
and finally, from poetry (6. 25 ff.). Thus Seneca hasconstructed an
informal literary hierarchy at the top of whichstands poetry, then
history and oratory, and finally, at thebottom rung, declamation
39).
Seneca is eager for his sons to engage in political careers
40)and therefore they must necessarily first become
accomplishedlegal and then political orators. For this reason
Seneca frequentlyin his works alludes to the defects of declamation
as apreparationfor court pleading, the necessity for a
discriminating style, andthe desirability of actual experience.
Acquisition of the lattertwo would be unlikely if they confined
their education to theschools of declamation 41). Seneca desired
that his sons redirect
37) E.g., Contr. I, 8, 16: Diocles Car.ystius dixit sententiam,
quae non indeclamatione tantum posset placere, sed etiam in
solidiore aliquo scripti genere ...
38) Suas. 6.16; cf. 6.2.7. The entire digression on historical
writerswho treated the death of Cicero (Suas. 6. 14-2.4), in the
company of theother remarks, may be taken as an enticement for his
sons to become inter-ested in writing history.
39) Though no great admirer of them (younger Seneca Ad He/v.
17.3; Ep. 108. 2.2), the elder Seneca points out that a
philosopher, AttalusStoicus, could achieve great eloquence in
declamation and easily surpassone of the professional declaimers
(Suas. 2.. I2.; cf. the somewhat less clear-cut case of Fabianus;
H, Praef., passim). His opinion of those who writefor pantomimes is
loaded with contempt (Suas. 2.. 19), but comic playwrightssuch as
Publilius Syrus could indeed be eloquent (Contr. VII, 3, 8) andwere
often imitated by declaimers. He was aware, however, that
individualhistorians could be as foolish as any declaimer (Suas.
2..22.).
40) E. g., II, Praef., 3-4; cf. X, Praef., 16.41) E. g., IX,
Praef., 5; cf. Tacitus, Dial. 35. See above, n. 29.
-
Arellius Fuscus and the of the EIder Seneca's Suasoriae :P9
their literary energies from dedamation to more
substantialgenres, and not follow the example of many others who
rarelywent beyond these school exercises. Roman
gentleman-politican, as Seneca knew, was expected to engage in
literarypursuits during his leisure. But Seneca believed that
dedama-tion should not constitute the main literary interest of his
sonssince, aside from the dangers discussed above, he consideredthe
exercises themse1ves to be trivial and puerile42).
His purposes in this regard are dearest in Suas. 6 whenSeneca
marks the sharp transition (6. 14) between the openingsections of
extracts from the dedaimers (induding Cestius andFuscus) and the
numerous quotations which follow from thehistorical writers. He
says that he will how the latter grouptreated the death of Cicero
since it is relevant to the theme ofthis suasoria. Seneca begins
with a discussion of Asinius Pollio'sdistortion of the facts in his
works on this subject, and how itoffered a fatuous theme the
professional school dedaimerswho frequently spoke on this new
topic; "Cicero de1iberateswhether he should burn his orations since
Antony promiseshim immunity should he do so."
Following this briefanecdote Seneca finally becomes
candidregarding the ambitions which he has for his sons and
alsoconcerning the relative merits ofhistory and dedamation:
Nolo au tem vos, iuvenes contristari, a declamatoribus
adhistoricos transeo. Satis fadam et fortasse ut his
sententiisIectis solidis et verum habentibus a scholasticis quia
hocpropositum recta via consequi non potero, decipere vos cogar,
velutsalutarem daturus pueris potionem. Sumite pocula (Suas. 6.
r6).
The specimens from the historians (and the one eple poet)
whlehfollow overwhelm the quotations from the dedaimers in
bothquality the prestige of their origin and provide a
vividcontrast to the obviously fictional content of the first part.
Bythe end of this suasoria, divided nearly evenly in length
betweenthe two groups, Seneca possibly believed that he had
impressedthe points which he wanted to make on his sons, since
thefollowing suasoria returns to exdusive1y dedamatory spedmens.Or,
less likely, he returned to declamation because as he humo-
42) ... sinite me ab istis iuvenilibus studiis [Le., dedamation]
ad senectu-tem meam reverti. Fatebor vobis, iam res taedio est.
Primo libenter adsilui ve/utoptimam vitae meae partem mihi
reducturus: deinde iam me pudet, tamquam diunon seriam rem agam.
Hoc habent scholasticorum studia: leviter tacta
delectant,tontrectata et propius admotafastidio sunt (X, Praef.,
I).
-
320 Lewis A. Sussman
rously remarks, his sons would not have read further than
thebeginning of the section on historians unless they knew
thatanother suasoria followed which contained the type of
extractswhich they desired:
Si hie desiero, seio futurum, ut vos illo loeo desinatis legere,
quoego a seholasticis reeessi; ergo, ut librum velitis usque ad
umbilieumrevolvere, adiciam suasoriam proximae similern (Suas.
6.27).
As promised Seneca attaches a seventh suasoria also on the
lastdays of Cicero in which he presents extracts from only
thedeclaimers. The theme is the hypothetical situation of the
greatorator debating whether or not to burn his writings,
sinceAntony has promised him immunity should he do so:
deliberatCicero an scripta sua conburat promittente Antonio
incolumitatem, sifecisset.
This is essentially the same theme disparagingly referredto in
Suas. 6. 14 which arose because of a de1iberate attempt tofalsify
the truth about Cicero's last days:
Narn, quin Cicero nee tarn timidus fuerit, ut rogaret Antoniurn,
neetarn stultus, ut exorad posse eum speraret, nerno dubitat
excepto AsinioPollione, qui infestissirnus farnae Cieeronis
permansit. Et is etiam oecasio-nern seholasticis alterius suasoriae
dedit; solent etiarn scholastici declami-tare: deliberat Cicero, an
salutern promÜtente Antonio orationes suaseornburat. Haec inepte
fieta euilibet videri potest (Suas. 6. 14).
Seriously damaging are the repetition twice within the
samesentence of the disdainful term for rhetoricians, scholastici,
andtheir suggested inability to see through a lie or their
excessiveeagerness to grasp for a flashy suasoria theme - whether
true ornot 43). In his implied contrast between historians and
rhetori-cians Seneca has linked his statement in Suas. 6. 14 with
theclosing comment sof Suas. 6. 2.7, and thereby to the entirety
ofSuas. 7 which has as its subject, popular among the
rhetoricians,a patently false situation. The total effect is to
stress even moreforcefully the gulf between rhetoricians and
literary people sotellingly demonstrated in Suas. 6 alone.
The final suasoria, then, returns to the artificial world of
thedeclamation schools, although the declaimers quoted are
cleverand occasionally achieve e10quence on the topic of the
immor-
43) A scholasticus is a eomplete devotee of declamation, either
the pro-fessional rhetor or the perpetual student. See Bardon
(above, n. 35), P 52.Seneea held these people in some conternpt: Et
Sparsum hoc colore declamassememini, hominem inter scholasticos
sanum, inter sanos scholasticum (Contr. I, 7, 15;cf. II, 3, 19;
VII, 5, 12).
-
Arellius Fuscus and the Unity of the EIder Seneca's Suasoriae
321
tality of literature. Seneca fittingly ends the final suasoria
withseveral anecdotes wruch relate the discomfiture of four
typicalproducts of the schools (Suas. 7. 12-14). First there is
Surdinuswho is reproached for his foolishness by none other
thanCestius, his teacher (Suas. 7. 12). Next is it the turn of
Cestius,and importantly Seneca works in the embarrassment of
thisman and the two who follow with the figure of Cicero,
therebyagain underlining the differences between true literature
anddeclamation and leaving this as the final impression on
thereader's mind.
Cestius, who was enamored by his own talent and con-stantly
attacked Cicero (Suas. 7. 12), was attending a banquetgiven by the
younger Cicero, then governor of Asia. When hefinally realized who
Cestius was, the orator's drunken son hadCestius beaten for the
man's disparaging comments about hisfather (Suas. 7. 13). The
orator's son also publicly insultedHybreas who brazenly plagiarized
Cicero to his face (Suas. 7. 14).The book ends with two quotations
from Gargonius, a schoolmaster himself (Contr. I, 7, 18), about
whom Seneca neverthelesssays, Gargonius} fatuorum amabilissimus} in
hac suasoria dixit duasres} quibus stultiores ne ipse quidem
dixerat (Suas. 7. 14). Seneca hastherefore in this suasoria
continued from Suas. 6 the unfavorablecomparison between
declamation and the higher forms ofliterature.
* **
But the direct and implied contra,sts between declamationand
declaimers on the one hand, and real literary men on theother, are
greatly in evidence not just in the two last suasoriaebut occur
throughout the fragmentary first book of suasoriaeand may well have
formed the theme of the preface as exemplifiedin the declaimer
Arellius Fuscus. This recurring theme is one ofthe means by which
Seneca has attempted to unify both thema-tically and physically
this collection of extracts and therebyendow it with meaning and
purpose. To summarize and con-clude:
(1) The declaimer Arellius Fuscus is the dominant figureof the
Suasoriae. If, as seems likely, Seneca continued his practicefrom
the Controversiae of treating the declaimer (or
declaimers)prominent in the preface with great fullness in the book
follow-ing, and also his tendency to name that person first in each
sub-
21 Rhein. Mus. f. Philol. N. F. CXX. 3-4
-
Lewis A. Sussman
division within a theme, then there can be lÜde doubt thatSeneca
devoted the lost preface to FUSCUS 44). This declaimeralso serves
to connect Suas. 2-5, both in content and throughthe
transitions.
(2) Seneca displays improved literary skill in the Suasoriae.In
contrast to the practices in the Controversiae, he has
consciouslyattempted to effect physical or thematic linkages
between eachof the declamation topics comprising the book. At the
end ofeach suasoria Seneca makes anticipatory comments intended
todraw the reader on to the next one and smooth the
transitionbetween them. His comments may deal with actual
contentmatter to follow, a broad theme, or both45).
(3) Even with the loss of the preface where we might
haveexpected fuller treatment, the first book of the Suasoriae as
awhole effective1y contrasts declamation with the more impor-tant
genres of literature, and also juxtaposes declaimers,
especiallyFuscus and Cestius, with famous writers. Although
introducedin the first Suasoria (I. 15), this aspect becomes most
pronouncedin the sixth and seventh. United also by similar subjects
and atransitional statement, these two final suasoriae are filled
withcontrasts which serve to demonstrate quite effectively the
44) On similar grounds it is quite possible, as mentioned above,
thatCestius may have played a somewhat less prominent role in the
lost preface,although this is more speculative. It is also, of
course, impossible to recon-struct the manner of transition (direct
or indirect) from the lost preface tothe first book of
Suasoriae.
45) The ending of Suas. I has apparently the weakest link to the
nextsuasoria, but one which assumes importance as the book
proceeds. At theend of Suas. I, Seneca remarks upon the differences
in taste between him-self and his sons, and his hope for their
improvement in this regard (Suas.I. 16). Suas. 2 begins then with a
quotation from Arellius Fuscus. Suas. 2,3, and 4 are connected by
the promise at the end of each one to provideadditional material
concerning Arellius Fuscus (Suas. 2.23 - also referringto matters
of taste, Suas. 3. 7, 4. 5). In each case the following Suasoria,
aspromised, begins with a quotation from Fuseus (Suas. 3. I, 4. I,
5. I). Atthe end of Suas. 5, Seneea returns to the theme of
stylistie tastes and theinfedority of declamation to other genres
of literature : Hoc loco disertissi-mam sententiam dixit, dignam
quae vel in oratione vel in historia ponatur ... (Suas.5.8). Here
he is anticipating the extensive treatment of oratory, poetry,and
espedally history which appears in Suas. 6. 14-27. At the end of
thisSuasoria (6.27), Seneca refers to the similarity in subjeet
matter betweenSuas. 6 and 7, but states that he will return to the
declaimers so that hissons will read on to the end of the seroll.
This too is an obvious refleetionon their taste - they prefer
declamation at this point to what Seneea eonsi-ders the higher
forms of literary aetivity.
-
Arellius Fuscus and the Unity of the EIder Seneca's Suasoriae
3z3
differences between declamation and true literature. HereSeneca
is being consistent with the literary judgment expressedin the
Controversiae: although declamation is a useful and enter-taining
exerdse, it should be considered only as preparation formore
serious work, not as an end in itself. Seneca admits
thatdeclamation can be a charming, sometimes stimulating, andoften
helpful exerdse for adults, but that overemphasis on itcan lead to
serious faults. Declamation is essentially the provinceof
schoolboys, and as he himself directly admits, it is a frivolousand
trivial pursuit for a mature man (X, PraeJ., I).
(4) Seneca recognized that the styHstic tastes of his sonsvaried
considerably from his own; and trus is arecurring topicof
discussion in the Suasoriae. Seneca is attempting, in his owngentle
way, to direct them towards higher standards of styleand also
literary aspirations through anecdotal portraits, exam-pIes, and
critical discussions of both declamation and for thewant of a
better term - true literature.
* **
As I have hoped to demonstrate, Seneca has artfully unifiedin
both content and structure the first book of the Stlasoriaewhile
continuing and refining themes, goals, and methods
whichch!1racterized rus earlier work, the Controversiae. Viewed in
thisnew light, we must cease to dismiss Seneca's works as
haphazardcollections of rhetorical reminiscences (6), but accept
them as,in their own way, well-crafted and planned pieces of
literarycommentary and criticism with consistent themes, goals,
andtechniques.
University ofFlorida (Gainesville) Lewis A. Sussman
46) Cf. the account in Edward (above, n. 8), pp. ix-x, how
classicalscholarship has in general completely misinterpreted
Seneca's works andachievements.